Threshold Speed
-
Definitive location would be the appropriate -1-2 for the block you are using, with a general chart being found in part 1 of the appropriate -1-1 for the block you are using. For BMS, its more accessible by going to the loadout screen, and altering the loadouts at random to determine the weights of individual stores and suspension equipment.
I don’t see the point of going to all that trouble. Just jettison stores on approach and then you have the fuel gauge to give you your weight in order to look it up on the chart. Simples.
It’s really too bad you can’t just fly the staple and the indexer ‘cause that might be even easier …. but I’m just spit-ballin’ here.
/sarcasm
-
Why make it harder than it is ?
-
Have a look in the Tac Ref for the weight of the store, then go to the loadout screen and add that store to the jet. Work out how much weight was added, subtract the store weight and then you have the pylon weight. The pylons do weigh a fair bit and the game factors them into the all up landing weight.
I haven’t been bothered to do this for everything yet haha. If you do, please post the results!
-
Of course flying the bracket/aoa is easier and the preferred way with or without jettisoning your stores.
I’m more interested in the weights of the stores and the formula in general. Seeing that some weights have been changed in ITO for example I was wondering where all this data was -
Guys can you help me?
I looked at it 3 times now, but I don’t get it what is wrong.can you paint also what should look like differently?
-
Wow, some of these are bang on to the performance manual… others are WAY off. This surprises me.
For BMS (this is what is useful for you):
16S301: 95 lbs
16S1700: 320 lbs
16S951: 172 lbs
LAU-88/A: 468 lbs
LAU-117: 406 lbs
LAU-118: 120 lbs
LAU-129: Included in the base aircraft weight for stations 1/9, and in the 16S301 weight for stations 2/3/7/8.From the manual (this is more useful to devs {maybe}): the 16S301 is heavier than it should be, but that makes sense, seeing as it includes the weight of the LAU-129 as well. Its still short of where the manual reckons it should come out though.
16S301 + LAU-129: 113 lbs, vs BMS 95 lbs.
The 16S1700 is a little overweight, at 320 lbs in BMS vs 289 lbs per the manual. Not quite bang on, but closer than the last one on the list of confusion;
The LAU-117 is horrendously overweight, at 406 lbs in BMS, vs 130 lbs in the manual. The similar sized and weighted LAU-118 is bang on, at 120 lbs in both BMS and IRL. This certainly messes with A/G stores somewhat, given the number that use the LAU-117. It also explains why its so much better always to go for the TER for mavericks - the single maverick launcher rail weighs almost as much as a TER.
Any insight on what is going on here would be much appreciated. Its the sort of thing that could be messed with easily enough using the BMS editor, but I would worry about how it might affect the FM to stuff with those.
Is this an already known bug?
Of course flying the bracket/aoa is easier and the preferred way with or without jettisoning your stores.
I’m more interested in the weights of the stores and the formula in general. Seeing that some weights have been changed in ITO for example I was wondering where all this data wasdata from the sim, you can get some of it from the loadout screen and some careful maths. To work out the masses of specific parts of the suspension (for instance, the weight of just a weapon pylon (16S1700) without the rack or adaptor) takes some browsing through the database.
data for the real jets, requires some basic google-fu (and knowing what terms to look for, like T.O. 1F-16CM-1-1 for instance).
-
This post is deleted! -
Guys can you help me?
I looked at it 3 times now, but I don’t get it what is wrong.can you paint also what should look like differently?
It’s just different ways to display the angle of attack, neither is more right or wrong then the other. Some aircraft have it so when the box is above the VV you’re fast, other aircraft same picture means you’re slow. I was just poking some fun at it and playing with some other ideas to get around using it. I don’t actually think there’s anything wrong with the game.
The whole reason is that you make instinctive corrections to the VV/bracket picture and if you make the wrong correction, you’d be making the problem worse!
-
Why make it more complicated than it is…
Put the FPM (or VV, as you call it) on the threshold, maintain a 3° slope, and use the throttle to adjust your AOA as to have the FPM at the top of the bracket (or the E indexer… which isnt a E, BTW). Fly the AOA, not the speed… When its time to flare, pull up to put the FPM on the middle of the bracket.
With your method, you need to do all kinds of computations when you are either flying the ATC approach, leading a flight to an overhead, or flying in formation. Just fly the damn AOA and you’ll be fine…
AOA also works in combat, BTW : if the indexer is in the red, you pull up too hard, your drag is to the roof and your lift isnt optimal.
-
Why make it more complicated than it is…
Put the FPM (or VV, as you call it) on the threshold, maintain a 3° slope, and use the throttle to adjust your AOA as to have the FPM at the top of the bracket (or the E indexer… which isnt a E, BTW). Fly the AOA, not the speed… When its time to flare, pull up to put the FPM on the middle of the bracket.
With your method, you need to do all kinds of computations when you are either flying the ATC approach, leading a flight to an overhead, or flying in formation. Just fly the damn AOA and you’ll be fine…
AOA also works in combat, BTW : if the indexer is in the red, you pull up too hard, your drag is to the roof and your lift isnt optimal.
+1 L3crusader. FPM + proper glide slope (I use the dashed lines on the hud at the threshold as a reference) … then you just fly the indexer to the flare. This approach “self computes” landing weight for any fuel/ordinance combination and keeps you right in the sweet spot for any landing.
-
You both missed the the point of the original post.I think -1x2
" and realised that the ‘E’ bracket is backwards!!! (to what I’m use to and some other aircraft) Which means I don’t want to use it or I’ll start getting it backwards! Plus, it’s interesting information"
And its really not that complicated. After all realism has some value here and I learn’t something from it.
-
You both missed the the point of the original post.I think -1x2
" and realised that the ‘E’ bracket is backwards!!! (to what I’m use to and some other aircraft) Which means I don’t want to use it or I’ll start getting it backwards! Plus, it’s interesting information"
And its really not that complicated. After all realism has some value here and I learn’t something from it.
Same here
-
Ony almost all fighter jets, the reference is the AOA, not the speed. Approach speed computation is only to sort a AOA probe failure or a bad AOA indication.
-
Please take aloo here: https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?18086-F-16-Viper-Cockpit-Tour&p=294862&viewfull=1#post294862
Edit: last info: the AOA indexer and AOA gauge indication is comming from the AOA probe, the AOA in the HUD is inertial.
-
Did you read the original post. He was not talking about “almost all” He was referring to His personal experience…
-
There’s no such thing as an “E” bracket. The AOA symbol on the F-16’s HUD consists of one vertical line segment and two horizontal segments, not three. The picture in the first post shows a “[” symbol with the -2.5° dashed pitch reference line in the background. The proper names are for the AOA displays are “AOA indicator” “HUD AOA bracket” and “AOA indexer.” I find it helpful to use precise terms in technical discussions. In the F-16 the Velocity Vector (VV) or Total Velocity Vector (TVV) is known as the Flight Path Marker (FPM). An engineer describing the difference between the motion of the airplane compared to the HUD symbol you might say that the display to the pilot is the FPM and the physical motion needs a different name, but for pilots in a working airplane they are the same.
I see there’s a confusion between “backward” like it is wrong and “backward from what I am used to” which is simply a personal statement. I was reading carefully the first post (which maybe is significantly edited since it was first made) to try to find out “OK what’s the actual problem?”
I’m really curious what other models of airplane have a different kind of symbol mechanics. What is the F-16 "backward’ compared to?
You can think of the HUD AOA bracket as an extension of the gun cross symbol. They are both fixed in the airplane reference frame the same distance apart. The HUD AOA bracket is not dynamic or smart in any way; it’s just a dumb mark on the HUD. You could almost get the same effect with a felt tip marker on the canopy. It’s impressive to come up with an empirical alternate method to get on-AOA but you should really get familiar with its use.
For example you are on final approach at maybe 5° AOA, but otherwise everything else is fine, on glideslope and FPM on runway. This AOA is too low for approach so you want to increase it. If you pitch up only you might get more AOA but the FPM will raise off the runway. If you decrease throttle the FPM will sink. The technique is to do both in a balanced way to prevent the FPM from rising or sinking. Power decreases, pitch increases, FPM stays still. The staple is barely needed, just looking at the difference between the FPM and the gun cross provides the exact same information.
-
I imagine a noob pilot saying to his instructor : i dont like the aoa indexer it seems.inverted
LOL
for a proper landing you shall use aoa bracket. Period
-
I used to land looking at the FPM relative to the gun cross to see my AOA until I learned about the AOA bracket. But after all this time using the bracket, I never realized what you were saying about the bracket being in a fixed position. That is awesome. Thanks for that epiphany.
-
I imagine a noob pilot saying to his instructor : i dont like the aoa indexer it seems.inverted
LOL
for a proper landing you shall use aoa bracket. Period
No wonder RL instructors are saying “it’s like that, period”. If RL student pilot are only half as picky as virtual ones, I’d do that too.
-
I see there’s a confusion between “backward” like it is wrong and “backward from what I am used to” which is simply a personal statement. I was reading carefully the first post (which maybe is significantly edited since it was first made) to try to find out “OK what’s the actual problem?”
I’m really curious what other models of airplane have a different kind of symbol mechanics. What is the F-16 "backward’ compared to?
.
Thanks for your inquiring post.